That was already called full speed in the USB 1 days though. There's a mode called low speed too which was 1.5mbit and meant for low throughput devices. Full speed was 12Mbit. This way stuff like keyboards and mice didn't need to include the highest end controller chips.

Calling it Full Speed was more a lack of vision than a deliberate attempt to confuse consumers as this HDMI thing seems to me.

So then when 2 and 3 came out they were forced to find superlatives. Hi-Speed, Superspeed.

The same happened with radio. High Frequency was up to 30Mhz. Then they found they could go higher. Very High Frequency, VHF. Then came more advances and Ultra-High Frequency.

Eventually they gave up after XHF and SHF and started using band letters :)

Using relative terms for constantly changing technologies is just a bad idea :)

The same people are the ones that decide to put _final/_latest/_etc in file names

The newest version of USB seems to have solved this by labeling ports with the supported speed (5, 10 or 20). Assuming they start doing the same with the cables, at least that part of the problem becomes tractable.

There is a reserved seat in hell for whoever allowed usb-c cables to have a max speed of usb2 (480Mbit/s).

USB SuperSpeed requires extra wires and much better shielding, which means a thicker, more expensive, less durable, cable.

You also can't make SuperSpeed cables that actually meet the spec once they get past a couple meters.

If I just want to charge my phone or laptop, a High Speed cable is actually better.

USB-C itself has nothing to do with data rate at all. It's really the combination of USB-C and USB 3.x standards made things like hell. It was supposed to have one single cable to do everything but the fact is that I have far more cables which look almost exactly the same but with dramatically different capabilities and I have no idea which can do what at all.

But nonetheless, USB-C indeed introduced one issue that I never imagined: sometimes my phone decided that it should charge the charger instead of being charged...

I don't know, sometimes I just want a very thin cable that is flexible - for charging mostly. I bought a proper USB-C anker cable for my phone early on, and replaced it literally within few days as it was proper big shielded cable that had zero flexibility, horrible for charging. I didn't care that technically it could do 10GB/s, it just wasn't necessary.

In theory, the choice of USB-C or -{,mini,micro}A/B is orthogonal to the choice of version: there are USB-A and even USB-B connectors (with additional pins) that support USB 3.0 as well. There is a logic to this.

In practice, it is confusing.

micro-USB requires a different extended connector for 3.0 [1], and I don't think there is a mini-USB 3.0. USB-A is generally coded with a different color and the extra pins are clearly visible [2], especially when you hold a 2.0 cable side-by-side. So it is all quite clear except for USB-C.

[1] https://www.startech.com/en-us/cables/usb3aub15cms

[2] https://www.howtogeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/usb-2.0...

There was logic to it: you could have a completely passive cable with a type c connector that would interoperate.

Agree or disagree, it wasn’t completely absurd.

There are "charge only" micro usb cables too; I hate them.

I'd be fine with charge-only cables if there was a distinctive, mandatory, universally-honored way of indicating that.

I deliberately carry charge-only cables when I anticipate encountering untrusted chargers, and I've designated all mine with a band of red heatshrink on both ends.

These are useful for charging in no security situations. You can connect your device to an untrusted port in a wall with a charge-only cable.

If they have an A connector at the other end they are easily identified by just looking how many contacts it has.

These were made to save money but I found them handy for security reasons (no need for a USB condom).

USB condom. And now I know. Where can I buy a trustable one of these?

Pretty easy to validate— you plug your device into a trusted computer first and it doesn't recognize it.

For Type A chargers they are readily available online and can be testing using the approach mikepurvis wrote in a comment parallel to this. Or you can make yourself a clunky one as it’s just two wires.

I have seen them called “data blocker” or “secure charging cable” but what you want is one that is a female-to-male device so you can attach it to charging cables not just bricks.

Type C is harder. I have one from the early days of Type C that doesn’t do PD so in the end it’s only useful for phones. I haven’t seen one that does Power Delivery.

"full" was bad planning but I've never seen anyone advertise USB "full speed".

And I've never seen a USB 1 port or device labeled as USB 2. Is that even allowed?

So the problem hasn't been going on for 20 years.